This is a very interesting post, and I suspect the responses might well form the foundation of a book!(posted 8239 days ago)One of the most fascinating facts concerning the changes in films over the past 30 years and the responses from photographers--both those who lament the passing of the old and those who embrace the new- -is how a product may be technically "better," yet never elicit the warmth of acceptance from users.
Curiously, as I consider the old and new, it occurs to me that much of the fancy for the old is based on a pleasing yet inaccurate result, whereas the outcome differs in a satisfying way from reality. Consider those who look back to the days of Kodachrome II. (I think this is the film the previous poster was referring to from the 60's and 70's.) KII, compared to Fuji's Provia F, is woefully inadequate. Sure, it produced beautiful skin tones, did wonders with sunsets and the warm glow of low-angle light, but it was nowhere close to accurate. It was pretty, but not real. Provia F is sharper, finer grained, faster by two stops, pushes incredibly well up to two stops, and has superb color balance and contrast properties. Moreover, it is far more consistent, batch to batch, than Kodachrome II or KX, or their successors, KM25 and KR64, ever were. But this is a b&w forum, so forgive my diversion. Color slide film evolution simply offered a simple and obvious example.
Comparing Panatomic-X to TMAX100 or Delta 100 or Acros is a joke. Pan-X, short of TechPan, was the most difficult film to control I've ever used. It was tremendously contrasty, with miserable shadow detail and a propensity for blocking highlights. About all I can say good about it is it did offer good midtone separation and fine grain for its day. All the modern films I listed above are sharper, finer grained, much faster, and have a truer and more extended tonal scale. Sure, TMX is finicky, but if one gives it the care its "pro" nomenclature advises, it offers properties unheard of 30 years ago. Plus X, while easier to deal with than Pan-X, has many of the same shortcomings and doesn't even match the sharpness or fine grain of the current ISO 400 films of today. Tonally, Delta 400 is so superior to Plus-X, there is no point even comparing the two.
Anyway, my point was, the films of yore were inferior and simply not as accurate. Yes, they did allow one to be sloppier and still achieve a decent result, but anyone who actively follows this board should not be concerned about careless processing. The fact is, with proper care, the new films give the decerning photographer unprecidented control and a superior result to anything available 30 years ago.